Pi-ViMo: Physiology-inspired Robust Vital Sign Monitoring using mmWave Radars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of human vital signs using non-contact mmWave radars is attractive due to their ability to penetrate garments and operate under different lighting conditions. Unfortunately, most prior research requires subjects to stay at a fixed distance from radar sensors and to remain still during monitoring. These restrictions limit the applications of radar vital sign monitoring in real life scenarios. In this article, we address these limitations and present Pi-ViMo, a non-contact P hysiology- i nspired Robust Vi tal Sign Mo nitoring system, using mmWave radars. We first derive a multi-scattering point model for the human body, and introduce a coherent combining of multiple scatterings to enhance the quality of estimated chest-wall movements. It enables vital sign estimations of subjects at any location in a radar’s field of view (FoV). We then propose a template matching method to extract human vital signs by adopting physical models of respiration and cardiac activities. The proposed method is capable to separate respiration and heartbeat in the presence of micro-level random body movements (RBM) when a subject is at any location within the field of view of a radar. Experiments in a radar testbed show average respiration rate errors of 6% and heart rate errors of 11.9% for the stationary subjects, and average errors of 13.5% for respiration rate and 13.6% for heart rate for subjects under different RBMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".